What do you feel about this decision? Will it end arguing on this topic?

Question

Theologians said the move was highly significant - both for what it says about Benedict's willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church's views on heaven, hell and original sin - the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.

Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God.

"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

Answer 1

Frankly, I've always had problems with the "original sin" doctrine. To me, it is entirely unjust to lay a burden of sin on someone who has, personally, done no wrong. Yes, this does change the notions of grace and being "born again," and I think you'll hear a lot of complaints from fundamentalists once they realize that this weakens their position that all non-Christians go to Hell. After all, this means that everyone should only be responsible for their own sins (committed by action or deliberate/negligent inaction) and thus everyone is then resposnible for finding their own way to reconnect with God, which may or may not follow the "one size fits all" formula of evangelistic Christianity.

Answer 2

I'm not Catholic so i don't agree with all they do or say. I'm Full Gospel. Meaning the whole Bible(genesis to revelation) not picking bits and pieces to satisfy My beliefs and not God's will.
Besides, when a baby dies it DOES NOT go to Hell. She/He dies yes, but that is what original sin caused. Dying of the flesh. Not the spirit. Little children haven't renounced God when they are born. But as we come into adulthood we are responsible for our actions(freewill- believe or do not believe, no sitting on the fence). Add this to these 2 answers for your questions.
#1.-Doesn't affect me because I don't follow Catholic beliefs(they confess to priests where Jesus says he is the bridge. No one goes to the Father except thru me, any other way he is a thief.) #2.-Doubtful. Because someone will answer their way and not God's (that's some christians also.)

Answer 3

Judaism had belived in innocent birth since forever, really its the only sensical thing, IMO.

due to the fragmented nature of christianity its far from ending the debate, I mean what about all those people who likely still belive in the babies go to hell thing, but aren't catholic?

I think its a good start. IMO the church has been teaching fundamental self hate for too long already.

Answer 4

Hey you know I like that. "Everyone is born in the state of grace." Awesome I learned something new. Every individual become who they are (good or wicked) in their choice throughout their life. I'm glad that we all have the opportunity to change our choices of bad and become born again to start a new life in Christ. As they say, "It's never to late." Its only too late is after you die and chose not to be reborn in Christ. Once you're dead, there is no limbo or purgatory. There's only deep sleep (state of unconsiousness) in Hades (your grave). Those that sleep in Hades must wait for the Resurrection.

Answer 5

I am with rw on this . There is no question that babies are born innocent. It is the only thing that makes sense. In that case the test would have to be invalid. They must at least start even.

Answer 6

The "church" generally caves in after it looks foolish for a few hundred years on any topic. This is just another example.